Objections to the sale
KRAL challenged KAH's eligibility as an aerodrome ‘user' because its lease was for purposes other than aviation. The challenge was unsuccessful because ‘user' could legally be interpreted to include any lessee.
KRAL also claimed that MOT's contracted commercial adviser should not have managed the sale because he was also the accountant for the successful tenderer, KAH (a conflict of interest).
Puketapu hapū objects
In April 1995, just before tenders were received, the Puketapu hapū contacted MOT saying it had only just heard of the proposed sale. (This was the hapū that Treaty claimant Ati Awa Ki Whakarongotai had referred to.) The hapū met with MOT in May, arguing that aerodrome land should be offered to the original owners because its use had changed from defence to recreation.
MOT said that nothing could be done now because the sale contract had been signed. It also explained that the hapū's rights as former landowners remained after the sale.